I think the whole Lois not ending up with Clark was a powerful theme. It really helped push the divide and loneliness. Brought some real humanity to the character. However, I feel like they should have explore HIM more. He should have had someone to confide in. Someone he could share his feelings with. It was like this whole time we saw all this raw emotion building up, but then nothing.

If you guys have seen 50/50, the part where he just screams in the car REALLY made an impact. Or in JCVD when he gives that monologue. These are our main characters. Our guy to route for. You show us he has a ****** life, and he goes with it anyway and we go "well... that's it I guess" - but if you show that person really realise their failure (another example would be Bruce saying he failed Gotham and his family in BB, or that he failed Rachel in TDK, or when he is suffering in the cave and wakes up yelling in TDKR), then the audience can really go "Oh ****, I feel for this guy."

The other main issue was the threat he had on the side. It didn't mesh well AT ALL with the whole Lex Luthor plot and Lex was just way to comical. His plan was utterly stupid. This man is a master tactician, not a real-estate zealot. I know it was meant to be an homage to the original film, but the original film did not age well at all. It was a bad film - it only did well because it was a Superman film and it made us believe a man could fly.

Superman's threat should have been tied in with his problem with Lois. Just replace Richard with a villain from Supe's rogue gallery - but give him split personality or something. At some point, Lois gets injured by the darker side of the villain, and Superman pretty almost kills him in a fit of rage. Lois is now hospitalised and when Superman comes to see her, she tells him to get her "husband/boyfriend" and to leave them alone. Lois could die, or just leave, and in the end Superman defeats the villain but still feels like he's lost.

Not saying it's the best plot, I'm just saying that the thing that drives the character over the edge emotionally should be directly related to the main conflict in the story.

__________________

This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet.
It's liberty or it's death.
It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.
America today finds herself in a unique situation... to become involved in a bloodless revolution

If anyone can tell me what really a true presentation of Superman is, one that goes for every fan, then I would be able to provide you with an answer that is satisfying for everyone. But for me, I would say yes, I think it's a good Superman film, and is partly a true representation of Superman on the emotional aspect. I feel that comics generally don't do much justice to the emotional aspect of most characters. And I've read my share of comics, both Superman and non-Superman. On an emotional level, to me, it's a very good film. You can feel Superman's pain, and his love for a world that essentially doesn't belong to him.... if that makes sense.

First let me say, I enjoyed reading your post, which is odd because I don't generally enjoy reading post about why someone likes SR. Yet, I feel like you really did explain why you like it without any rancor or being defensive. So thank you for that. Second thing is what in the world happened to DoggofKrypton? I go away for 2 weeks of vacation and I come back to see his named banned. I'll miss that guy...he's passionate.

Anyway, to answer your question I think the best, recent representation of Superman is the Timm animated series in the 90s. Though there have been a lot of good representations in the past 30 years, and it would be remiss of me not to mention STM. For me though, the cartoon was the best up-to-date version since Lois and Clark. I also think Birthright and Secret Origins are very good representations as well.

I do agree everyone has a different idea of what Superman means to them, but IMO every good representation usually highlights the key things in the mythos. Those things are his dedication to the earth and humanity, his strength to resist temptation and his essential goodness. I did not get any of those from SR. Primarily becase in that version Superman leaves earth and a preggers Lois. That killed it right there, but then he returns and becomes a brooding stalker. All that is "no bueno" in my book and not a good representation of Superman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

I feel it's not a matter of this film standing out from other films, tv-shows, etc, because I think you can't compare. All of them are so very different from eachother that I just can't compare them. I can't give you an answer to that. I just know I liked the film very much because of the reasons mentioned above and below.

That's acceptable, but IMO those other incarnations are better than SR because they incorporated more of what Superman is known for. They depicted a better Superman, a more likeable Superman. I felt like SR did a hack job on Superman and his values/mythos so they could make his story more emotional then it actually needed to be. SR's Superman was almost unrecognizable to many long time fans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

I like Superman Returns because (to me) it shows an emotional Superman. He comes back from a long period of absence, wherein he has tried to find others of his race. This alone showed he feels alone in a world he doesn't really belong to. After he comes back to earth he finds the world, but especially the woman he loves has moved on. Once again he's alone and it makes him realise he's really alone. But still he gives it all to save the people he loves, who have moved on without him, and the ones who see him as a semi-god, because that is that ultimate goodness in him. And I think it's sweet that, in the end, he finds out he's not alone after all.

IMO, all the things you mentioned are good for an elseworld comic. However, this is not the film that should have been released after a haitus of 20 years. Also, the slavish devotion to the Donnerverse did not help establish any of the themes you mention because the film was hemmed to that particular universe. Maybe the film would have been better if it established its own universe and then tried to tell that story. In fact, I do believe it would have been better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

I think Superman Returns makes a good Superman film, because it triggers other issues than just a world that is under threat from a madman. Sure, that's Superman's 'job', to save people. To me Superman is more than this muscled superhero that fights for truth and justice. He is a man with feelings, real emotions, and though he is not human, he was raised as one, with all the morals and values, doubts and conflictions that the 'normal' people have to face.

Maybe it's because I'm of the female gender. I like a bit of action and a bit of drama. Superman Returns moved me, showed me the person beneath both guises of Clark Kent and Superman.

I am female too...lol. I don't mind drama either, but you can't make Superman into a cry baby who gets his ass kicked by Lex Luthor without a Kryptonite suit. It just doesn't make any sense. Plus, drama for drama's sake is not always a good thing. It's a superhero movie for christsake! It's not Schlinder's List.

i appreciate it on some levels,a nostalgic level, for it's connection to the Reeve films,which i grew up on.

that said... it's not the Superman we knew and loved. my biggest issue is,after Superman II, which this is meant to be a sequel to,Superman learned that humanity needs him,and he learned the painful lessons that went with abandoning his mission as Earth's protector and role model to satisfy his own wants and desires.

so what are we told in SR? that he goes and f$%king does it AGAIN! and apparently right after the events of Superman II to boot! he abandons those he's sworn to protect to again try and satisfy his own needs. he abandoned the people who needed him TWICE! is it any wonder that the people of Earth have moved on and everyone isn't excited to see him back?! and apparently he didn't even bother to TELL anyone why he was going,as evidenced by Lois' confusion as to where he went( one of the first questions she asked him on the rooftop) ,and the big front page hanging in the Planet, "WHERE DID HE GO?" so,apparently he just upped and left and didn't tell anyone.

that said... it's not the Superman we knew and loved. my biggest issue is,after Superman II, which this is meant to be a sequel to,Superman learned that humanity needs him,and he learned the painful lessons that went with abandoning his mission as Earth's protector and role model to satisfy his own wants and desires.

so what are we told in SR? that he goes and f$%king does it AGAIN!

Thing is… SR works just fine as a “stand alone.” True, the film might assume knowledge of the basic Superman mythology and tropes. But no “homework” (in the form of seeing a prior film) is actually necessary. (And this is a different circumstance than a true/proper sequel - like Jedi is to Empire- where knowledge of both films is implicit.)

Consider the scenario where a critic takes the trouble to innumerate all the alleged “continuity issues” between SR and SII. Now, that might be fair under a priorconsensus that the former is the proper sequel to the latter. But all those “issues” become moot the moment someone says “Dude, I’ve never seen SII and have no desire to.” In other words, the “continuity criticism” only has traction if a different, 30 year-old film is taken into account - but makes no sense if it isn’t.

Ideally, compelling criticism shouldn’t have to rely on such a contentious foundation. It should be just as convincing irrespective of whether the reader of the criticism has - or has not - seen/remembered a prior movie.

BSinger meant for SR to be some sort of sequel to SII. He is the one who says it takes place 5 years after SII. I am positive I have read this quote from him. I'll try to find it.

My point is saying it's a stand alone is not true because the director meant for it to be tied to SII and STM. The director himself deliberately wanted the movie to be seen this way. Sure it can be viewed as a stand-alone, but that's not how BSinger wanted it to be seen.

The problem I see is Singer picked and discarded certain elements from SII to fit his story instead of making it an outright sequel. This is confusing to the audience who are familiar with SII. I'm sure he realizes in hindsight that was a bad idea.

Still even if it was meant to be a stand alone and not a loosely tied sequel. I have problems with Supes having relations with Lois without telling her that he's ClarK Kent. The idea in and of itself is CREEPY, which is not a trait I normally associate with Superman. Add in the fact, he ups and leaves without saying a word to her makes Superman an even bigger jerk, which is another trait I don't associate with Superman.

BSinger meant for SR to be some sort of sequel to SII. He is the one who says it takes place 5 years after SII. I am positive I have read this quote from him. I'll try to find it.

My point is saying it's a stand alone is not true because the director meant for it to be tied to SII and STM. The director himself deliberately wanted the movie to be seen this way. Sure it can be viewed as a stand-alone, but that's not how BSinger wanted it to be seen.

In literary criticism (and applicable more broadly) there’s a school of thought that posits the author’s intentions as essentially irrelevant. (See “authorial intent” or “intentional fallacy.”)

This means that the text (and not any external commentary about the text) is the only basis for legitimate analysis/criticism. For example, if someone writes a blatantly misogynistic novel, we’re entitled to dismiss the author’s opinion that he did not write a misogynistic novel (or didn’t intend it as such). The novel/text must (and does) speak for itself. Similarly, a movie “plot hole” that’s addressed in a deleted scene or a novelization doesn’t count as a “fix.” The intention to address the problem may have been there; but if it didn’t end up in the final edit, it’s fair to ignore it.

In considering a film (or a critique of a film), our collective responsibility is to have seen the film - not to have researched any and all external/extra-textual commentary by the author. (And what if the author/director gives conflicting quotes? ) Why bother with all this when the finished text - the thing that’s actually under consideration - is unambiguously available for inspection?

Singer might claim (though I doubt he did) that the events of SR literally take place 5 years after SII. But the films - the texts, themselves - say 1978 and 2006. So no sequel continuity can be reasonably inferred. And the text, ultimately, takes precedence over any off-the-cuff comment from an interview.

Singer might claim (though I doubt he did) that the events of SR literally take place 5 years after SII. But the films - the texts, themselves - say 1978 and 2006. So no sequel continuity can be reasonably inferred. And the text, ultimately, takes precedence over any off-the-cuff comment from an interview.

I'm not going to wax philosphical with you about literary criticism over a comic book movie based on a character with over 70 years of lineage. If you think my arguement, or anyone else's, is invalid because of the reasons you stated then fine. Just be advised I do not advise to that school of thought.

You may be correct that Singer didn't say it takes place 5 years after Superman II. I think the premise was it takes place after a 5 year absence. However, I believe Singer said it's a vague history in "Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman". I'm not sure though. Yet, there are numerous sites that detail his "vague history" comment.

Director Bryan Singer has said that the continuity is "branching off from" elements of "the firsttwo Superman films with Christopher Reeve," which serve as, as he puts it, a "vague history." Thus, the film disconsiders the plot of Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

Well, the film is written to be the vague sequel to the first two films. Inheritably in the script there are many homages in the character - especially written from that character - so there are similarities because of that. The only thing that was done, really only to mimic Chris’ performances, [was] pushing the glasses up with the forefinger. I did that sometimes. Sometimes Bryan would love a shot and I didn’t do it. He’d tell me to do it because it fit in a certain shot, or sometimes I adjusted the glasses like that.

By any reasonable standard, SUPERMAN RETURNS isn't a bad film. Nor is it a really dark film or a morose film. Its got lots of humor in it. Overall its a fairly serious film, with a few key dark elements. The film is very well made. Well cast, well acted, well executed, well scored, and it has very good special effects. The superhero/disaster action is fantastic, the film is beautiful visually and has wonderful emotion, the romantic elements work quite well, and Superman’s burden/dedication is felt. The film has moments of real joy, and moments of real despair.

The "vague sequel" thing, I think people just need to get over some of the issues they've invented to have with that. Its obvious that the film is not directly or completely tied to any previous Superman film, but rather to memorable moments of the existing franchise. It doesn't really matter that Lois didn't remember sleeping with Superman at the end of SUPERMAN II, because in this film, she did remember spending the night with Superman.

Most people’s main problems with the movie seem to revolve around two things:

The first is the fact that it was a sequel to the Donnerverse instead of a reboot. Ironically, more than half of fans wanted this approach prior to the film. Then they whined when they got it.

Then there’s the second issue, the reaction to the modern moral exploration, notably Superman having a kid out of wedlock, failing to say goodbye, and daring to still have feelings for Lois upon his return. This seems to be the most burning issue people have with the film. That Superman isn’t perfect. That he is capable of being fallible. He can be selfish. He can abandon those he protects. He can make big mistakes. And I get that, but I also find the portrayal refreshing and revealing. Ultimately and realistically, he must CHOOSE to be Superman. He is Superman precisely because he chooses to serve as an example of the best of humanity. I find that a whole lot more powerful than a man who just IS good because he is good in the comics. I also find it a little sad that so many people (fans) couldn't stomach this interpretation of the character. Mind you, this is an extension of a character who was shown to be somewhat selfish, human, etc, in the first two Superman films. But showing it in modern terms in a loose sequel to those films was just too much.

As time goes on, its interesting to me that its fine if Bruce Wayne is a flawed individual in the recent Batman franchise and its okay for most people because that's Chris Nolan doing his take on the character, but Superman’s not allowed to have serious doubts or flaws in Singer's film. Essentially, Chris Nolan is allowed to make his version of Batman but Bryan Singer was not allowed to make his, based on a previous version by Richard Donner, who made his version of the character as well. I find that to be a bit of a double standard a lot of fans have applied.

SUPERMAN RETURNS has some key flaws. It doesn’t explore its central concept (Superman abandoning Earth and them moving on) well enough. There’s not much in the way of character development. Storywise, there’s Superman finding his place in the world again and adjusting to a new normal, but not much in the way of actual character development, for him or his supporting cast.

Yes, there could have been more superhero action. But this was a story about a man (Luthor) VS Superman. That was the choice they made, and superhero slugfests don't really enter into that. Even with that, I can’t say it wasn’t an exciting film, because the plane sequence alone is incredible, and the final rescue sequence is also very good.

Not using the opening visit to Krypton was a mistake. Really, the execution of the whole "Superman finds out Krypton is out there" angle is a bit lacking. Originally, Luthor was to be revealed to have engineered the whole thing as part of his long term revenge plot. The final film doesn't reflect this, and should have.

Luthor's plot gets a lot of flack in general, and executionwise, it's not very realistic or very deep, but it also makes perfect sense in context. He has crystals that wreak havoc. He can grow weapons, land, etc. Luthor would very much have the upper hand against the rest of the world with this Kryptonian technology. But that's not the point. The point is never supposed to be just that he is creating land to sell. He's already rich after swindling the old woman.

The point is that the plot is Luthor perverting Superman's heritage to hurt and kill a lot of people and then kill Superman. That is the most important part of Luthor's plan. The land grab is just how Luthor justifies the scale of it. But afterward, it is clearly revealed he has ulterior motives. The land grab scheme itself would be a long term development. The land would continue to grow. The immediate benefit for Luthor is the death of Superman.

The acting is solid across the board. Spacey is fantastic, as are Marsden and Langella and Eva Marie Saint. Brandon Routh is not a good actor. He was, however, pretty much born to play Clark Kent and Superman and so his acting ability isn't really at issue in this film. He was solid in the role, with several impressive moments in the film. He sold the quieter, more introspective Superman of this film quite well, with only minor acting missteps, notably a few sequences earlier in the film. And Kate Bosworth was fine as Lois Lane. She had relatively little to work with characterwise, but made for an appropriately “throwback”, matured and calmer version of Lois Lane. There's nothing inherently wrong with her performance. People just apparently didn't want to see "calmer, working mom Lois".

The beating of Superman by Luthor and his goons is great. A fantastic reversal, and one of the more brutal moments in superhero film/lore.

The final sequence where Superman saves Metropolis is fantastic. Superman lifting the Kryptonite land mass is fantastic, and the way Superman survives the incident is obvious. He's drawing all the power he can from the Sun, and expending all his energy in a life sacrificing feat. Why people have such problems with this is beyond me. SUperman soaking in the sun is a beautiful moment (probably one of the best in superhero film).

As a continuance/closure to the Reeve Superman mythology, SUPERMAN RETURNS is a success. Its not what the character needed longterm, and its a bit of an oddity. Its really a pretty original movie overall. There's a lot of noise made about how it is basically just a rehash of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, which isn't true. The plot is markedly different, though there are obvious parallells, and the focus of the story is entirely different. There is not "lots" of dialogue from previous films. A couple of lines, tops.

I would say that despite its presentation of Superman as a less morally absolute character, the film did showcase the key elements of the Superman mythos, it just did it a bit differently and less obviously. Superman's dedication to Earth was shown, but here it was shown as a rededication and a realization that, though he wants a normal life, he has greater duties to Earth/Metropolis and eventually, to Lois, Richard and Jason. Superman was shown quite clearly to be resisting the temptation to go further with Lois, or to force the issue. He allowed her to make the decision about who she wanted to be with. Superman's essential goodness is very much found in the film. He sacrifices his life (twice) to stop Luthor.

And the movie was indeed moderately successful. Whether it made enough money or was ultimately a disappointment or not, WB was going to go ahead with a sequel and developed several iterations of one until two films changed the superhero film landscape and the profit potential of superhero films: THE DARK KNIGHT, and IRON MAN. And eventually, Singer moved on to other projects.

Regardless, I feel blessed to live in a world where we get both SUPERMAN RETURNS and MAN OF STEEL.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

I had no problem with the Donner Verse thing myself although I did say at the time I'd have preferred a reboot but I also felt that with Superman the Movie you have as close to a perfect origin movie as you can get.

My problems with the film were mostly:

- Superman wasn't the main character in the film and he didn't have alot of dialogue
- I hated the portrayal of Lois Lane, she was not only was miscast but written badly and she just comes across as a complete b**ch and had no chemistry with Routh. Infact itas funny how the moment she arrives at the Daily Planet thats when the film starts to go downhill.
- They didn't really do a sequel to the Donner films it was a rehash so much dialogue and even scenes were lifted from the original movie. Now I think you could have gotten away with the statisaclly speaking line but there was just too much of this
- There was no Supervillain - people had waited years for Superman to have a throwdown with modern FX
- Too much CGI - there was so much CGI even when Brandon fell over on some scenes. Look at the bit with the plane CGI body and Brandons face that worked well but whena full CGI Brandon Routh lifted the spaceship into the atmosphere all I kept thinking was why?
- The love triangle should be Lois/Clark/ Superman not involving Richard
- The kid - probably the films biggest issue -Superman would be a homewrecker if he split up Lois and Richard
- Why ask the question Does the World Need a Superman then not really answer it?
- Lex's land plot - which I don't hate as much as most but couldn't he have done something good with the Crystal tech and made some weapons/ships so we could have seen Superman throw down
- We should have seen Superman do more saves throughout the movie instead of that quick reel in the middle on the TV (urgh)
- The costume - it really did look awful, they were right to go classic but they needed to do something better than this
- Misuse of Kryptonite, if Superma had have landed on a huge Kryptonite rock he would have probably splatted
- More Superman in the daytime (sunshine) would have been nice
- Lastly, that ending was extremely flat, he does this amazing thing lifting a huge island mostly made of Green K into the sky and then this is what I always think watching the ending "OH MY GOD HE'S DEAD (OMG THEY DID IT THEY REALLY KILLED HIM), oh he's in hospital........... wow this is taking ages....... oh look he's alive talking to his son..... and no Lois (ZZzzzzzz!), has this film not ended yet?! oh look there's CGI Superman again." just not the way to end a Superhero film especially a Superman film even the mediocre Superman III and the awful Superman IV have more upbeat endings than this.

On the flip side I like:
- Spaceys Lex - Even though I didn't like his motives I loved Spacey as Lex
- Brandon Routh (just wish he'd have had more to do)
- Sam Huntington nailed Jimmy Olsen, almost wish he could come back
- Marlon Brando back as Jor El - this was used quite cleverly (although not as cleverley as it should have been but hey)
- The plane sequence - by far still the greatest scene I have ever seen in a movie - this is Superman
- The elevator change (still wow)
- Superman catching the Daily Planet globe, along with the other super saves in the City
- Superman flying up to recharge himself in the Sun (Super WOW)
- I'm a massive fan of the Crystal fortress
- The score (for the most part could have been a little more uplifting at times)

Stuff I'm still not sure on:
- I admit I'm in between on Frank Langella as Perry White, I just feel the character could have been scripted better
- Richard White -don't get me wrong I love James Marsden but this character shouldn't have been in this film or should have been different, could've maybe still been a love rival but he didn't have to think he was the kid's father (although as above the kid been taken out would have solved a big problem)

All in all I do like Superman Returns but I feel I should LOVE a Superman movie and I can enjoy it but when I watch it I just always think why didn't they do this or this? and it ruins my enjoyment of the film. Who knows if Man of Steel ends up been the perfect Superman movie maybe I could just sit back and watch Returns without asking those questions as I know it would have led to something better. But overall I'm glad Superman Returns happened at least now I will have two different kinds of modern Superman film to enjoy

By any reasonable standard, SUPERMAN RETURNS isn't a bad film. Nor is it a really dark film or a morose film. Its got lots of humor in it. Overall its a fairly serious film, with a few key dark elements. The film is very well made...[etc.]

An interesting and thoughtful post.

My pet peeve with a lot of the SR criticisms is that they’re actually generic complaints about the basic mythos. But for rhetorical effect, they’re often represented as being specific and unique to the film. A tad unfair (not to say hypocritical) I think.

Just for instance… I know some who objected to how “easy” it was for Luthor to find the FOS. Couldn’t Supes pick a better hiding place? Doesn’t he have “stealth technology”? A front door with a lock? Well, fair call. Even in fantasy stories, a certain degree of logic/plausibility still applies. But in the comics, various villains (including Luthor) have figured out the FOS’s whereabouts and have periodically and successfully infiltrated it.

So, what’s the difference? Why the ire directed at SR while many of the very same genre tropes are forgiven with a “wink-and-smile” in decades worth of comics (or in STM/SII)?

My (mischievous?) question: are the SR criticisms really about the sins of the film - or is it some kind of subconscious ridicule of the traditional Superman conventions? In other words, be careful what you mock.

- The love triangle should be Lois/Clark/ Superman not involving Richard
- The kid - probably the films biggest issue -Superman would be a homewrecker if he split up Lois and Richard

“If” being the operative word.

It would be difficult to read the final act of SR as the clichéd “happy ending” - wherein Superman, Lois and Jason are (re)constituted as a nuclear family.

My own interpretation is that Richard is still in the picture, that he and Lois will remain together and that they will raise Jason. Superman’s personal fulfillment (his “happy ending”) derives from a different source - the knowledge that he has a son.

The other interpretation is that Richard has nobly stepped aside. But this would only mean that Lois raises Jason as a single mother. In no real way does Superman represent (nor can he) Richard’s replacement as a full-time “husband” or “father.”

And even if you infer a Lois-Richard breakup, it would be a big leap to blame it on the active/selfish machinations of Superman. Clearly, both he and Lois were tempted. But by the halfway point in the narrative (and it is, literally, at the halfway point), this temptation is essentially resolved. Indeed, in the yacht rescue scene, there’s a bit a conspicuous imagery/symbolism of Superman saving/preserving (notdestroying) the Richard-Lois-Jason family unit. And subsequently, Supes selflessly consigns himself to martyrdom - another altruistic act of preserving this family.

My pet peeve with a lot of the SR criticisms is that they’re actually generic complaints about the basic mythos. But for rhetorical effect, they’re often represented as being specific and unique to the film. A tad unfair (not to say hypocritical) I think.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would level these same criticisms at any portrayal of Superman which included what SR did. This is not specific to the movie. If this was a comic, elseworld or otherwise, I would say the exact same things for the exact same reasons.

I hate when people say other people's criticisms are invalid because they feel what you are critiquing isn't relevant. You don't feel the same. That's fine, but it's condescending to say, "You aren't criticising the right thing, so you're just wrong." Again, that's why I generally don't like reading SR supporter posts. Eventually the debate devolves to...."you didn't like it because you didn't get it."

Whatever! Consideriing there will be no more to BSinger's mess of a Superman...I guess I'm not the only one who didn't get it...and I'm okay with that.

It would be difficult to read the final act of SR as the clichéd “happy ending” - wherein Superman, Lois and Jason are (re)constituted as a nuclear family.

My own interpretation is that Richard is still in the picture, that he and Lois will remain together and that they will raise Jason. Superman’s personal fulfillment (his “happy ending”) derives from a different source - the knowledge that he has a son.

The other interpretation is that Richard has nobly stepped aside. But this would only mean that Lois raises Jason as a single mother. In no real way does Superman represent (nor can he) Richard’s replacement as a full-time “husband” or “father.”

And even if you infer a Lois-Richard breakup, it would be a big leap to blame it on the active/selfish machinations of Superman. Clearly, both he and Lois were tempted. But by the halfway point in the narrative (and it is, literally, at the halfway point), this temptation is essentially resolved. Indeed, in the yacht rescue scene, there’s a bit a conspicuous imagery/symbolism of Superman saving/preserving (notdestroying) the Richard-Lois-Jason family unit. And subsequently, Supes selflessly consigns himself to martyrdom - another altruistic act of preserving this family.

Oh yeah it is an if however say there'd have been a trilogy of Superman films I'm pretty sure the audiences would have wanted Superman and Lois to get together at somepoint unless they'd have thrown a curve ball and introduced Lana but yeah of course there's other ways around it but Superman clearly takes a spoken for woman into the skies and goes in for a kiss (he also stalks her at one point) and he knows shes with someone.

i do really wish they had included the scene of his return to Krypton,as well as dialogue explaining Luthor set the whole thing up, so Supes would be gone when his appeal came about ( and Superman WAS,technically,the only witness to his "Destroy the West Coast" plan. everything else was strictly circumstantial evidence,unless Ms. Teschmacher and Otis turned on him) and would likely die at the site of Krypton,with all the Kryptonite floating about.

like i said,i like parts of it,i DON'T like parts of it. my biggest issue is a Superman who abandons mankind again for his own wants.

i actually like the Luthor plot. it fits in perfectly with the Hackman version,who had 2 goals - Land,and the death of Superman.

just goes back to the 1st film for me - "Mind over muscle", showing Luthor has these big,intricate plots which count on Superman kinda just rushing in and not thinking everything out,or at the very least not counting on Luthor's ability to out think him and neutralize him.

I hate when people say other people's criticisms are invalid because they feel what you are critiquing isn't relevant. You don't feel the same. That's fine, but it's condescending to say, "You aren't criticising the right thing, so you're just wrong." Again, that's why I generally don't like reading SR supporter posts. Eventually the debate devolves to...."you didn't like it because you didn't get it."

I agree with you on this. People are generally very defensive about their opinions. A lot of people (and I'm not say all) seem to think their own opinion is the truth and whatever other people think is in invalid. I like discussions, whatever subject, but more often than not it ends up in a 'fight' or a 'I'm right and you're wrong' discussion. Which is not a discussion at all.

I think it's good everyone has his or her own opinion. But as soon as people start to attack other people because of that different view I take my leave.

If I may add, charl_huntress, and don't get me the wrong way, I'm not trying to put you down or offend you in anyway: It's not only the supporters who are defensive about their opinions. It's also non-supporters. I've seen it happen many a time (not just on this forum) and it bothers me greatly. People should be allowed to voice their own opinions with out being offensive or rude to one and other. An honest and fair discussion is never wrong.

__________________Proud Owner of the Gambit's Royal Flush Fanlisting - 08/12/2013: NOW ALL NEW AND IMPROVED!
Proud Member of Gambit's Royal Flush

I can't speak for everyone, but I would level these same criticisms at any portrayal of Superman which included what SR did. This is not specific to the movie. If this was a comic, elseworld or otherwise, I would say the exact same things for the exact same reasons.

I hate when people say other people's criticisms are invalid because they feel what you are critiquing isn't relevant. You don't feel the same. That's fine, but it's condescending to say, "You aren't criticising the right thing, so you're just wrong." Again, that's why I generally don't like reading SR supporter posts. Eventually the debate devolves to...."you didn't like it because you didn't get it."

Whatever! Consideriing there will be no more to BSinger's mess of a Superman...I guess I'm not the only one who didn't get it...and I'm okay with that.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would level these same criticisms at any portrayal of Superman which included what SR did. This is not specific to the movie. If this was a comic, elseworld or otherwise, I would say the exact same things for the exact same reasons.

In that case, you’re being evenhanded and consistent with your analyses. I can only say that I have run into (other) folk who were both staunch critics of SR and staunch fans of (for example) SII. Yet some of the specific reasons cited in criticizing SR would seem to apply, just as easily, to SII. And it strikes me as sound to draw attention to the apparent bias and/or inconsistency.

Quote:

I hate when people say other people's criticisms are invalid because they feel what you are critiquing isn't relevant. You don't feel the same. That's fine, but it's condescending to say, "You aren't criticising the right thing, so you're just wrong." Again, that's why I generally don't like reading SR supporter posts. Eventually the debate devolves to...."you didn't like it because you didn't get it."

It’s not that someone’s opinions or personal tastes are wrong. But forums like this would be rather sterile and boring places if everyone just expressed a raw judgment without further commentary. (“You like chocolate? Hey, I like vanilla.” The end.) A post/review/article - positive or negative - customarily includes reasons for the opinion. And it’s those stated reasons that are available to scrutiny and possible rebuttal - because they may be invalid.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of this. Suppose I say that Movie X is bad. Well, that’s my opinion - so it’s not wrong. But then I’m inspired to defend my view and I offer one reason (among others) why I think it’s bad: there’s a conspicuous plot hole in the second act! As it turns out, however, I missed a crucial bit of dialogue that explains/fixes the alleged plot hole. Now this correction doesn’t change my impression of the movie - I still think it’s bad. But if I want to continue the discussion, I need to reconsider my arguments and come up with different/better criticisms. Moreover, it was entirely fair for the opposition to point out my mistake. In doing so, they’re not saying that my overall opinion is wrong, just that my statedreasons are (or might be) suspect.

So back to (less hypothetical) SR. I do not declare someone’s negative view of the film to be mistaken (or that I can logically argue them into liking it). But if they’re moved to provide analysis in support of their conclusion, that analysis is open to my best efforts at rebuttal. (That is, I’m disputing the mode and structure of the specific argument, not the final opinion.) To disqualify this on the basis that it represents an unwelcome challenge to personal tastes would reduce our discussions, it seems to me, to uninteresting - and very short! - statements (again - “You like chocolate. I like vanilla.”).

(Yes, I’m aware that this post is “philosophical” - which you’ve mentioned is not your thing. Apologies. )

If I may add, charl_huntress, and don't get me the wrong way, I'm not trying to put you down or offend you in anyway: It's not only the supporters who are defensive about their opinions. It's also non-supporters. I've seen it happen many a time (not just on this forum) and it bothers me greatly. People should be allowed to voice their own opinions with out being offensive or rude to one and other. An honest and fair discussion is never wrong.

Nevaratoiel, I so agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.

In that case, you’re being evenhanded and consistent with your analyses. I can only say that I have run into (other) folk who were both staunch critics of SR and staunch fans of (for example) SII. Yet some of the specific reasons cited in criticizing SR would seem to apply, just as easily, to SII. And it strikes me as sound to draw attention to the apparent bias and/or inconsistency.

It’s not that someone’s opinions or personal tastes are wrong. But forums like this would be rather sterile and boring places if everyone just expressed a raw judgment without further commentary. (“You like chocolate? Hey, I like vanilla.” The end.) A post/review/article - positive or negative - customarily includes reasons for the opinion. And it’s those stated reasons that are available to scrutiny and possible rebuttal - because they may be invalid.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of this. Suppose I say that Movie X is bad. Well, that’s my opinion - so it’s not wrong. But then I’m inspired to defend my view and I offer one reason (among others) why I think it’s bad: there’s a conspicuous plot hole in the second act! As it turns out, however, I missed a crucial bit of dialogue that explains/fixes the alleged plot hole. Now this correction doesn’t change my impression of the movie - I still think it’s bad. But if I want to continue the discussion, I need to reconsider my arguments and come up with different/better criticisms. Moreover, it was entirely fair for the opposition to point out my mistake. In doing so, they’re not saying that my overall opinion is wrong, just that my statedreasons are (or might be) suspect.

So back to (less hypothetical) SR. I do not declare someone’s negative view of the film to be mistaken (or that I can logically argue them into liking it). But if they’re moved to provide analysis in support of their conclusion, that analysis is open to my best efforts at rebuttal. (That is, I’m disputing the mode and structure of the specific argument, not the final opinion.) To disqualify this on the basis that it represents an unwelcome challenge to personal tastes would reduce our discussions, it seems to me, to uninteresting - and very short! - statements (again - “You like chocolate. I like vanilla.”).

(Yes, I’m aware that this post is “philosophical” - which you’ve mentioned is not your thing. Apologies. )

If I like chocolate and you like vanilla then it is what is is. Simply because my reasons for liking chocolate cannot be disputed. You cannot invalidate my reasons for liking chocolate just as I cannot invalidate you reasons for liking vanilla. There are no INVALID reasons. If you feel there are then you are wrong!!!!! PERIOD.

We all have our own opinions and when something is subjective, I don't think that posting objective reasons will be enough to persuade the opposite view point to appreciate the "other" side.

Having said that, I think Dr. is not trying to "convert" those who disliked SR but rather wants to discuss the merits and demerits of thinking behind such a position. I think that he is very reasonable in his posts.